That’s your argument? That’s what you’re going with?
Over at Federal Way Conservative Jonathan Gardner has written what I suppose he thinks is and unassailable critique of atheism, which he calls, “How to Think Like an Atheist.”
Here is what appears to be the nut of his argument:
The heart of religion is simply this. God exists, He speaks to us in our hearts, and that’s it. You don’t need to bring logic or reason into it, except maybe at the fringes in those areas where God invites you to bring your logic and reasoning into it (with the correct understanding that you’ll likely arrive at the wrong answer at least 57 times before arriving at the right answer, and even then you won’t recognize it as being right.) But the heart of my religion, and I believe the religion of everyone who holds their religion dear, is free from human frailties such as reason and logic.
And he sums up in this way:
To summarize, Atheists put a lot of stock in logic and reasoning, while religionists such as myself understand that human logic and reasoning is flawed at best.
And I can only presume that he thinks this is worthy of posting on the internet.
I left a comment on his blog (the same as the title of this posting) but he apparently declined to approve it. So no big deal, I have a blog too. 🙂
I think the funniest part of his post is this, from the second paragraph, in which he is talking about, of all things, Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian”:
First, take an argument that proves the existence and nature of God. Then, misstate it.
Oh? An argument which proves the existence and nature of God? Which Bertrand Russell has the temerity to “misstate?” How interesting. I’ve never heard of this proof of God. Eagerly, I read the rest of Mr. Gardner’s post, hoping he would lay out this proof of God for all us heathens.
No such luck, as you must have surmised from my opening paragraphs. Nothing but idiocy from Mr. Gardner, nothing but assertions, with no argument whatsoever to be found, not even a bad argument.
He says that human reasoning and logic is flawed, but never gets around\ to explaining how his thinking regarding his religious views are somehow exempt from these flaws. How does he know he isn’t wrong? He never says.
In the comments he makes a few “arguments” which are (that favorite of Christians everywhere) nothing but a series of logical fallacies knownas “appeal to consequences.”
You suck at this game, Mr. Gardner.